| |
| |||||||
 |
| | LinkBack | Thread Tools | Display Modes |
07-30-2007, 09:12 PM
| #1 |
| Newbie Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: DERRY
Posts: 7
|  1.9 scale Vs: 2.2 scale!!!
Hey guys, just thought i would bring up this arguement on which tires size is better for a scale crawler. Not only for looks but for performance also. looking to do my first scale build and not sure on tires even though its far in the future. Any tips and suggestions are welcomed. I am starting off with a k2-3l chassis and R2 tranny with some tlt axles.
|
|  |
| Sponsored Links | |
| | |
|
07-30-2007, 09:17 PM
| #2 |
| 2006 2.2 National Champ   Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Big Bear Lake
Posts: 8,328
|
It really depends on the look you are going for. If your scale build is going to be a streetable looking daily driver, go with 1.9's. If you like the monster lift and tires look, go with 2.2's.
|
|
| |
|
07-30-2007, 09:20 PM
| #3 | |
| Adilynsdad too!   Join Date: May 2004 Location: G ville
Posts: 8,844
| Quote:
I feel driving 1.9 rigs can improve your driving skills too. You just have to choose your lines better and pay more attention to tire placement ... | |
|
| |
|
07-30-2007, 09:21 PM
| #4 |
| Newbie Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: DERRY
Posts: 7
|
sounds good i think im headed toward the daily driver kind i like the look it just seems more scale to me. any suggestion on tires. im going with aluminum beadlocks but i know there aren;t many 1.9 tires out there.
|
|
| |
|
07-30-2007, 09:22 PM
| #5 |
| Rock Crawler Join Date: Apr 2007 Location: portland
Posts: 584
|
i like them both. i love how scale the 1.9's can get. i have seen quite a few that make even the most keen eye look twice. but for crawling performance, the 2.2 wins. i think the 1.9's are just alittle too light or something. dont get me wrong. i have seen those 1.9's do pretty good, but for some reason the 2.2's do better. just like the supers do better than the 2.2's. you gotta have some weight to push down on the rocks and make those tires grip and rip. i see alot of 1.9's try and climb a rock and they are bouncing all over the place. thats my opinion. if you dont like it. prove me wrong
|
|
| |
|
07-30-2007, 09:23 PM
| #6 |
| Quarry Creeper Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: 2 miles from nowhere MO.
Posts: 372
|
I would have to say 1.9. But that is just based off of looks. To me it just looks better. I have seen a lot of good performing 1.9 rigs too. Either way thou...good luck with the build and enjoy it  300th post woo whoo Last edited by draven; 07-30-2007 at 09:25 PM. |
|
| |
|
07-30-2007, 09:32 PM
| #7 |
| RCC Addict Join Date: Feb 2005 Location: Crawlifornia Uber Alles
Posts: 1,146
|
i have no problems with my 1.9 rig keeping up with 2.2 scale rigs, and even some 2.2 comp rigs!
|
|
| |
|
07-30-2007, 10:41 PM
| #8 |
| Rock Crawler Join Date: Feb 2007 Location: CoMo...Kickin it with Holmes Hobbies
Posts: 805
|
i say 1.9...with the new 1.9 mud slingers, my scaler out performed many of the 2.2's at my crews last get together...and they just look a lot more scale...just my $.02..
|
|
| |
|
07-30-2007, 11:25 PM
| #9 |
| I had the hottest girlfriend at the MSD Nats Join Date: Dec 2006 Location: Hecho en Tejas
Posts: 2,399
|
i crawled a few things with my f350 tires some 2.2 comp rigs didnt make. really! its all in the driving with tiny tires. 2.2 is like a foe-dee-foe tire, not everyone has em. theyre just damn big. 1.9 is like a DD duty tire which can be seen on all ferd stupid duty trucks. my point is 1.9 is more of a realistic choice for me. Last edited by obijuan; 07-30-2007 at 11:58 PM. |
|
| |
|
07-30-2007, 11:53 PM
| #10 |
| RCC Addict Join Date: Jan 2006 Location: The Amish Ghetto
Posts: 1,932
|
1.9 is scale 2.2 is super sick tube buggy stuff |
|
| |
|
07-31-2007, 06:32 AM
| #11 |
| '08 2.2 National Champ  Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: UTRCRC
Posts: 5,585
|
Go 1.9 if you want a scale anything, otherwise 2.2 is fun for bashing. If you would have been at the Montana Comp and saw Kaetwo and Pinch Flat run their 1.9 warpigs there is no way you would doubt the capability of a 1.9 rig. They ran with the best of the 2.2's.
|
|
| |
|
07-31-2007, 07:00 AM
| #12 |
| Rock Crawler Join Date: Jan 2006 Location: Connecticut
Posts: 795
|
I agree with pretty much everything that has been said. With one exception. Its really going to depend what your trying to accomplish. Take me for example. I'm copying a 1:1 FJ40 tuber with 44" TSL Swampers. A G-hawg scales out to around a 47" tire in 1/10 scale. This is the best choice for me. Its a bit bigger than what the 1:1 is running but still very scale. Heck, I've built my share of 1.9 rigs and this tuber is going to be the most scale rig I've ever owned!
|
|
| |
|
07-31-2007, 08:13 AM
| #13 |
| ~THE SCALE SHOP~ Join Date: Apr 2006 Location: KILLEEN TX
Posts: 10,056
|
1.9= scale and now with the cut and shut tires, and the slingers, the 1.9 are VERY cabible rigs now. |
|
| |
|
07-31-2007, 08:44 AM
| #14 |
| Sinking with the ship  Join Date: Mar 2005 Location: El Capitan...sole survivor and sinking fast
Posts: 8,864
|
This 1.9/2.2 thing cracks me up  Its all in the build fellas...for example... my fo runna  And the real deal   |
|
| |
|
07-31-2007, 08:50 AM
| #15 |
| PapaGriz Yo  Join Date: Apr 2004 Location: In the garage building the wife a crawler
Posts: 13,137
|
So I guess someone better tell Chino that this is NOT sclae.   It all depends on the scale size of your body and what look you are going for. Not all bodies are 1/10 scale. Also see this : What do you aim for on your 2.2 scale ? Last edited by Grizzly4x4; 07-31-2007 at 08:55 AM. |
|
| |
|
07-31-2007, 08:54 AM
| #16 |
| RCC Addict Join Date: Jul 2006 Location: Pasadena
Posts: 1,118
|
it sure does have some scale fugging up to it...  the ultimate "you must pick your lines carefully" size is 1:25th. its just big enough to be out on the real rocks and just small enough to be used inside on random books and other junk. |
|
| |
|
07-31-2007, 09:15 AM
| #17 | |
| RCC Addict Join Date: Jul 2006 Location: So Cal USA
Posts: 1,109
| Quote:
Makes you think when you drive 'em! ~John | |
|
| |
|
07-31-2007, 12:11 PM
| #18 |
| ~THE SCALE SHOP~ Join Date: Apr 2006 Location: KILLEEN TX
Posts: 10,056
|
true about the 2.2 body size and finished look. but most dont narrow there 2.2 so they are like 24" wide tires in 1:1. where as most 1:1 are 12.5 or 13.5 wide. thats what make most of the 2.2s look like monster trucks.
|
|
| |
|
07-31-2007, 12:46 PM
| #19 |
| Adilynsdad too! Join Date: May 2004 Location: G ville
Posts: 8,844
|
I'm not really crazy about most of the stock 1.9 tires however, I love the look of reduced 2.2's. Mike, how would your 4runner look with 2.2 mashers on 1.9er wheels. Not reduce the outer dia. but, cut the sidewalls and re-glue a 1.9er. I know it would be alot of work but, I think it would look cool
|
|
| |
|
07-31-2007, 01:35 PM
| #20 |
| ~THE SCALE SHOP~ Join Date: Apr 2006 Location: KILLEEN TX
Posts: 10,056
|
narrowed of course ;)
|
|
| |
|
| |
Linear Mode
